1. This is a legal case. For the plaintiff to win, they have the burden of proof to show gender discrimination (or some other reason it was unlawful termination). The court was saying that there was no such discrimination. The ruling must be based on the facts of law (not the outrage of the yellow press or the unruly mob).
2. Iowa is an employee at will state. Your post has nothing to do with the way the law works. There is no documentation that would have changed the facts of this case or the ruling. Firing someone based on the advice of your wife or your church is not against the law unless you can show discrimination. The court found there was no discrimination.
3. You only heard one side of the story. This was a summary judgement. The court didn't consider the employer's side of the story, so we don't know the nature of the relationship. By making a summary judgement the court said (unanimously by the way) that even if everything that the plaintiff alleged was correct, they still had no case given the facts and the law.
4. The judges explain quite well, in their ruling, why the Tenge precedent is relevant. If you still don't understand it after you read it, we can discuss it.